-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 708
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Added Triangulation::create_cell_iterator(). #11365
Conversation
de620e0
to
e3e673a
Compare
@@ -2743,6 +2744,13 @@ class Triangulation : public Subscriptor | |||
active_cell_iterator | |||
last_active() const; | |||
|
|||
/** | |||
* Return an iterator to a cell of this Triangulation object constructed from | |||
* an independent CellId object. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe add a sentence like this:
* an independent CellId object. | |
* an independent CellId object. If the given argument corresponds to a valid | |
* cell in this triangulation, this operation will always succeed for sequential | |
* triangulations where the current processor stores all cells that are part | |
* of the triangulation. On the other hand, if this is a parallel triangulation, | |
* then the current processor may not actually know about this cell and in this | |
* case ... |
- add what actually happens. I suspect that the operation is ok if it's a locally owned or ghost cell, but may not work if it's an artificial cell. Maybe say so.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suspect so, too. Artificial cells may not be refined enough to create a cell iterator. I've adjusted the documentation and the error message accordingly.
/rebuild |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for working on cleaning up my badly designed code. :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me once we have agreed on a solution for #11364.
Rebased on master. Ready for final review/merge. |
Closes #11362.
Blocked by #11364.(EDIT: merged)